Ka-Wai Yeung
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Taiwan Journal of Linguistics Vol. 4.1, 1-48, 2006 ON THE STATUS OF THE COMPLEMENTIZER WAA6 IN CANTONESE* Ka-Wai Yeung ABSTRACT Complementizers are generally known as function words that introduce a clausal complement, like that in English, for instance (Radford 1997). In many languages, complementizers are re-analyzed from verba dicendi, or verbs of ‘saying’ (Lord 1976; Frajzyngier 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Lord 1993). This paper argues for the existence of a complementizer re-analyzed from a verb of ‘saying’ in Cantonese by providing a synchronic analysis of waa61. Waa6 has often been assumed to be a lexical verb in serial verb construction because of its following a ‘saying’ predicate or a cognitive predicate. However, this paper argues that waa6 is not always a verb, postulating that waa6 may have different meanings and subcategorizations in different situations, including waa61 meaning ‘say’ [__ (PP) CP] or [__ PP NP], the transitive verb waa62 meaning ‘blame/ * I am most grateful to Elaine Francis and Stephen Matthews for their constructive comments on the early drafts of this article. Thanks are also due to Sze-Wing Tang for providing some of the Cantonese examples and to Hilary Chappell for providing the Taiwanese Southern Min data in her article prior to publication. I am indebted to two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. 1 As is common practice for Mandarin and Taiwanese romanization, the paper use the Scheme for the Chinese Phonetic Alphbat (Hanyu Pinyin Fang’an) and Church Romanization, which was devised by Presbyterian missionaries in the 19th century in Taiwan. The tones are not indicated in the transcription, except when they are essential to the analysis. For Cantonese romanization, this article follows the Cantonese Romanization Scheme (Jyutping) designed by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong (LSHK) in 1993. See Tang et al (2002). The Chaozhou data are directly cited from Xu and Matthews (2005), in which the romanization is based on Xu (2004). 1 Ka-wai Yeung 2 condemn’ [__ NP CP], and the complementizer waa63 selecting a clause [__ IP ]. This proposal is supported by different tests, such as aspect marking and argument selection, confirming that the complementizer waa63 formally exhibits different properties from that of the verbs waa61 and waa62. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Grammaticalization of Complementizers from verba dicendi Complementizers, in general, are the words that introduce a complement clause (IP), indicating that such a word is a complement of some lexical head. Complementizers are typically selected by verbs, usually verba dicendi (i.e., verbs of ‘saying’), like say, tell, or cognitive verbs describing mentality, like think, doubt. For example in English, that in I thought that they would come is categorized as a complementizer.3 Heine (2002) describes grammaticalization in terms of a four-stage scenario. At Stage I, the ‘initial stage,’ the grammaticalized item is expressed with its ‘normal’ or source meaning. At Stage II, there should be a ‘bridging context’ that gives rise to an inference in favour of a new meaning that is a more plausible interpretation than the source meaning. Stage III concerns a ‘switch context,’ in which an interpretation in terms of the old source meaning is no longer allowed. Stage IV is the ‘conventionalisation’ of the grammaticalized items, where the target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it. The four-stage scenario does not occur in discrete stages, but in a continuum leading from Stage I to Stage IV and it has been found to be a helpful model in typological studies of the grammaticalization of 2 The paper assumes propositional sentences as maximal projections IP projected by the INFL. See Chomsky (1981). 3 The strict definition of complementizers is problematic. See Yeung (2003). While some believe complementizers are function heads that subcategorize a clausal complement IP (Radford 1997; Haegeman and Guéron 1999); and some categorize complementizers by their semantic functions (Wierzbicka 1988; Langacker 1991; Frajzyngier 1995; Givón 2001); some even totally reject the proposition that complementizers form a distinct word class (Hudson 1995; Hudson 2000). Still, these approaches all share the general consensus that complementizers subcategorize for a clausal complement, forming a constituent that acts as the complement for the preceding lexical item (Yeung 2003). 2 Cantonese Complementizer waa6 complementizers. Studies of grammaticalization have shown that that one of the paths of re-analysis by which complementizers develop is from verba dicendi4, as both complementizers and verbs potentially subcategorize for a clausal complement (IP). This potential constitutes the ‘right typological precondition’ for the grammaticalization of complementizers from verbs, in particular the ‘say’ verbs. Wu (2004:90-91) observes that ‘frequently this [grammaticalization] occurs when a language has serial verb constructions which allow for a sequence of two verbs of communication (one more specific, the second less specific) to become re-analyzed as a sequence of verb + complementizer […].’ Xu and Matthews (2005) also suggest that the productive verb serialization in Sinitic languages provides a ‘relevant typological precondition’ for complementizer grammaticalization. These preconditions construct the possible context by which the target meaning can be established. The first exhaustive study of the re-analysis of complementizers from ‘say’ verbs is by Lord (1976) who surveyed a number of African and Asian languages, mostly Niger-Congo languages, and found that 29 of them appeared to have a complementizer re-analyzed from ‘say’ verbs. Her work provides extensive cross-linguistic evidence that complementizers can be re-analyzed from ‘say’ verbs. (1) shows an example from the Kwa language Ewe, where the complementizer bé is re-analyzed from the verb be, meaning ‘say’. In (1a), the ‘say’ verb be takes a propositional complement. Yet, the ‘say’ verb gblç only takes an NP complement, as in (1b). If gblç takes a propositional complement, the complement clause must be introduced by a complementizer bé, as in (1c) and (1d). (1) a. me-be mewçe b. me-gblç-e I-say I-do-it I-say-it ‘I said, “I did it”.’ or ‘I said it.’ ‘I said that I did it.’ 4 Regarding the sources of complementizers, Hopper and Traugott (1993) suggest several paths of grammaticalization, including derivation from accusative case morphemes, allatives, datives, deictic demonstratives, lexical nouns, and verbs of ‘saying’. 3 Ka-wai Yeung c. *megblç mewçe d. megblç bé mewçe I-say I-do-it I-say COMP I-do-it ‘I said, “I did it”.’ ‘I said that I did it.’ (Lord 1976) Apart from West African languages, the same phenomenon is found in other languages, such as the Creole languages Saramaccan, as in (2), and Sranan, as in (3) (Plag 1993; Veenstra 1996; Lefebvre 2001). 5 Saramaccan: (2) a. Hén a táa: mi nángó and-then 3sg say 1sg Asp_go ‘And then he said: I am leaving.’ b. A táki: táa: a náki hén 3sg say say 3sg hit 3sg ‘He said that he had hit her.’ (Veenstra 1996:155) Sranan: (3) a. Da’ Anansi taki, eng go proberi efi eng kan saki fa a nem ‘Then Anansi said, he would try if he could learn his name.’ (Plag 1993:40) b. Mi sabi taki Marlon no fufuru na fowru I know SAY Marlon Neg steal the chicken ‘I know that Marlon didn’t steal the chicken.’ (Plag 1993:36) For Chinese, some studies (Chui 1994; Hwang 1998; Hwang 2000) have provided evidence to suggest that ‘say’ verbs are grammaticalized into complementizers introducing propositional complement clauses. These examples include shuo in Mandarin, kong in Taiwanese, and waa6 in Cantonese, as shown in (4). (4) a. Mandarin: Liji hui-da shuo (*le) meiyou… Liji answer SHUO (*Asp) NO ‘Liji’s answers (that) “NO.”’ 5 It is likely that these Creoles have the same phenomenon as a result of substrate influence from Niger-Congo languages. See Plag (1995). 4 Cantonese Complementizer waa6 b. Taiwanese: Goa siongsin kong (*goe) l I-teng bo phian goa I believe KONG (*Asp) he must Neg lie I ‘I believe that he didn’t lie to me.’ c. Cantonese: John gong2 waa6 keoi5 hai6 mei5gwok3 lai4 gaa3 John say WAA6 he be America come SFP ‘John said that he was from the U.S.’ (Hwang 1998) These studies are primarily concerned with a diachronic analysis of the grammaticalization of complementizers from ‘say’ verbs, setting the stage for further investigation through a synchronic analysis of these complementizers. 1.2 The Aims and the Proposal of the Paper Building on proposals from earlier diachronic studies of Chinese, this paper argues for the existence of a complementizer re-analyzed from a verb of ‘saying’ in Cantonese by providing a synchronic analysis of waa6. It is tempting to analyze waa6 as a lexical verb in serial verb construction (SVC) because of its following a ‘saying’ predicate or a cognitive predicate. An SVC analysis is often assumed without any synchronic justification, such as in Matthews and Yip (1994:308), ‘gong…wah “talk…say” is a serial verb construction in which the second verb waa6 appears redundant.’ Also, Hwang (2000) analyses shuo ‘say’ construction as ‘factive-complementizer shuo “say” serial verb construction,’ even though she believes that shuo performs the grammatical function as a complementizer following saying, informative, and cognitive verbs. This paper takes the alternative view that although the waa6 construction is historically derived from an SVC, and waa6 continues to be used as a serial verb in some contexts, there is a usage of waa6 that is fully grammaticalized as a complementizer and synchronically distinct from a serial verb. This paper postulates that waa6 may have different meanings and subcategorizations in different constructions, including 1) waa61 meaning ‘say’ which subcategorizes either an optional PP and an obligatory CP [ ___ (PP) CP], or selects a PP and an NP [ ___ PP NP]; 2) the transitive verb waa62 meaning ‘blame/ condemn’ which subcategorizes an NP and an optional CP [ ___ NP (CP)], and 3) the 5 Ka-wai Yeung complementizer waa63 as a clause introducer selecting a propositional sentence ( ___ IP).